This study explores and identifies a number of key qualitative and quantitative differences in textual discourse styles in English and Hindi editorials found in the New York Times (NYT) and Navbharat, respectively. These differences could be the source of strenuous processing of such editorials by learners of Hindi. Our contrastive rhetoric analysis reveals that, in general, NYT editorials are more detailed and stand-alone pieces; that is to say, writer-responsible. The arguments, suggestions, and recommendations therein are directly stated. The main argument appears early, and details are provided later, following a deductive writing style. Also, there is an observed avoidance of passive voice constructions. Navbharat editorials, on the other hand, seem to rely on readers’ background knowledge of the issue presented and, therefore, consists of fewer details and, as such, are reader-responsible. The arguments, suggestions, and recommendations are often indirectly stated. The main argument is often missing or stated at the end of the editorial after a number of details are provided, evidencing an inductive writing style. In Navbharat editorials, there is also an observed ample use of passive voice constructions. Rhetorical organization of editorials in each of these publications may work for the readership of the respective publications within the culture in which they operate. However, such differences would require language professionals to develop teaching materials and strategies to help learners comprehend editorials and other high level texts in each of the respective languages. To that end, we are suggesting a few strategies.